Andrew Bartlett wrote:

“The least favourable data I've seen suggests Australia has around 13% of the renewable water resources that the USA has, with about 7% of the population. If you just count the 48 coterminous states of the USA the per capita contrast is even more favourable. These stats are from the CIA Yearbook (3069 cu km to 398 cu km). There are other stats from FAO's AQUASTAT of total renewable water resources which give an even more favourable per capita contrast.

However, there may be other stats, which I'd be interested to see.”

Well, Andrew, consider this: With just a minimum of effort, confirmation could be had, on a whole of landscape basis, on behalf of the really dense population:

Annual average rainfall, (roughly to this order) Europe/Australia 0.600/0.500 metres
Annual average evaporation Europe/Australia 0.350/2.050 metres

Comparing Australia, the US and European rainfall is silly.
It all depends of where you live in Australia.
For example I live in Cairns we have over 2m of rainfall and forecast to increase with Global Warming.

The top half of Australia has lots more rain we have most of our population in the wrong half.

The people living in the desert below the tropics should move north.

“The top half of Australia has lots more rain. We have most of our population in the wrong half ----The people living in the desert below the tropics should move north.” John Pratt says.

John, you have exalted company: Paul Davies, Professor of Natural Philosophy at Adelaide in 1996 wrote - under the title Megacity Madness in the Education section of The Australian – that cities the size of Adelaide scattered across the “well watered north” of Australia were the answer to Australia’s burgeoning population problem.

Oh, to be so erudite! Even at the Rudd Government’s (now diminished??) immigration intake - vastly elevated even over Howard’s massive intake - plus natural increase, we would be busy doing nothing more than keeping pace with our expansion.

To do just that, one city the size of Adelaide, every three years, would need to be sprinkled across the countryside from the “wet desert” (as Geologist Fred Whitehouse called it) of western Cape York, through the gulf country where cattle drown in the occasional good wet season if their legs are less than 5 metres long, to the crusty landscape of the Kimberlies.
No worries, problem solved – move north?

Thank for your replies

Given many authorities use a measure of renewable water resources as a comparative measure, I am not sure why such figures should just be dismissed. Even with different figures like those colinsett uses for Europe vs Australia, there is the issue of the very different numbers of people on those two continents.

Divergence says I "cannot assume that the people who said they were satisfied with existing levels of immigration in the past would still be satisfied with today's higher intakes."

Actually I can assume that, based on the same surveys - the AES Trends in Political Opinion survey continues up to the 2007 election. The percentage of people who say "the number of migrants allowed into Australia at the present time" is either "about right" or "not far enough" goes from over 56% in 1998 to 65% in 2001 69% in 2004 to 60% in 2007. The percentage who say migrations numbers have "much too far" has been below 20% since 2001. This was over a time when Australia's immigration intake was increasing significantly.

Having majority public support for something does automatically mean it is a good policy, but that's no reason to claim there is majority support for something when there isn't.

Horus, I am not using 'back of the envelope' calculations. I am using comparative data from publicly available and credible sources, rather than just making sweeping unverified assertions.

And while it's very kind of you to try to read my mind and expand my words into something that they didn't say, you're guess at my thoughts or intent was wrong. I was not "spruiking the L-I-E that the rest of the world subscribes to the Andrew Bartlett immigration agenda." I was simply pointing out that the rest of the world will not shape their population policies according to Australia's immigration policies - in effect you have confirmed my point, although I wouldn't be so rude as to accuse Ludwig of LYING when he made his comment. He is just incorrect.

Horus also misrepresents my comments on the refugees from Burma by saying my "argument seems to be that because they’ve “endured’ hardship that makes them genuine – (LOL)". Obviously you have absolutely no idea of the enormous suffering these refugees have endured. It might make you LOL, but I'm afraid I can't see the funny side in laughing at others people's torment. Being a refugee involves far more than just enduring hardship - the legal definition of refugee is very clearly defined and I don't think there is any dispute that it applies to these people. That is why Australia is resettling thousands of them here at the moment.

The fact that - as you acknowledge - Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia etc do not provide safe haven for these people is an obvious reason why some of them seek to come to Australia which does provide such safety. I did not "conveniently neglect" to mention this fact - I can't mention everything given the space limitations on comments. But I am pleased that you made this point clear.

Your comments also acknowledge that these countries also take in high number of other migrants, which also reinforces my point that it is not just Australia who accepts sizable numbers of migrants.

As I said, these other countries tend to exploit migrants and refugees far more than Australia does. You didn't agree with me that treating people less humanely is not a policy Australia should follow - I trust you just ran out of space.

Whatever issues Australia has with carrying capacity, they are much greater in most other areas of the planet. The simple point is that population numbers is a global issue and to pretend Australia can exempt itself from it by blocking entry to the country is putting your head in the sand, particularly given we are amongst the most profligate nations on that planet.

Andrew Bartlett wrote: "Having majority public support for something does automatically mean it is a good policy, but that's no reason to claim there is majority support for something when there isn't."

But, as Fester noted, according to the poll results:

"Those wanting fewer immigrants outnumbered those wanting more 45% to 15%, or 3 to 1."

And that was in 2007, before the Rudd Government increased the immigration intake by something like 20 percent. Thus, to claim that there is "majority public support" for the Rudd Government's record high immigration intake is simply not true and really quite a mendacious statement on your behalf. As we can see, there were far more Australians in 2007 against higher levels of immigration than in favour of them.